About this Show

Key Capitol Hill Hearings

Speeches from policy makers and coverage from around the country.

NETWORK

DURATION
02:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v24

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Ukraine 10, Navy 10, Us 7, The Navy 7, Russia 7, America 6, Crimea 6, Washington 4, United States 4, Pacific 3, Virginia 2, New C-span 2, China 2, Hollywood 2, South Korea 2, Facebook 2, L.c. 2, Crimea Crimea 2, Alexander Bolmachov 1, Anastasia Snelling 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Key Capitol Hill Hearings    Speeches from policy makers and  
   coverage from around the country.  

    March 1, 2014
    4:00 - 6:01am EST  

4:00am
4:01am
4:02am
4:03am
4:04am
4:05am
4:06am
4:07am
4:08am
4:09am
4:10am
4:11am
4:12am
4:13am
4:14am
4:15am
4:16am
4:17am
4:18am
4:19am
4:20am
4:21am
4:22am
4:23am
4:24am
4:25am
4:26am
4:27am
4:28am
4:29am
4:30am
4:31am
4:32am
4:33am
4:34am
4:35am
4:36am
4:37am
4:38am
4:39am
4:40am
4:41am
4:42am
4:43am
4:44am
4:45am
4:46am
4:47am
4:48am
4:49am
4:50am
4:51am
4:52am
4:53am
4:54am
4:55am
4:56am
4:57am
4:58am
4:59am
5:00am
>> there have been a couple of ship types we built the ship while designing the ship. that is not a good way to build a ship. it is not a good way it do much of anything. and that is what i was talking about about. the design and platform needs to be staple. the technology needs to be mature. if you get some new gee whiz technology put it on the next block, on the next group you buy. don't try to force it in and containing -- change the requirements. same with service contracts. be very clear about what it is and don't change it all the time. because it is not cost efficient for one thing but it is not fair to our industry partners to change the requirement and
5:01am
expect it for the same price. >> you have championed broadening the energy base for the navy. how is that going? and how do you manage that? >> first it is going very well. to answer the first question it is fuel and energy is a military vulnerability particularly the way we are doing it today. i'm very glad that america is producing more oil and gas. but even if we produce all that we can use, there are two overriding factors. number one oil and gas are global commodities and the price is set globally. so, you get some instability somewhere, you get somebody
5:02am
threatening to close a strait somewhere, you get anything, when the price of oil went up $10 with syria syria is not a major producer but it sis the security premium that traders place on oil regardless of where it is coming from. every time the price of oil goes up a dollar a barrel it costs the navy and manner corps an additional $30 million. in 2011 and 2012 the navy was presented with an additional unbudgeted $2 billion in fall costs. well there are not many places to go get that sort of money. you can take it out fof operations. so you steam less, fly less, or if it gets too big you take it out of platforms. neither of those is a good idea. so we are looking for a more
5:03am
stably priced domestic source of fuel for seagoing and aircraft that is something like biofalls. we demonstrated biofuels at rimpac in 2012. every aircraft that flew off the aircraft flew off on a blend of navy fuel and gasoline and all the ones around them were steaming on a 50-50 blend of diesel and biofull. the big news is there was no news. we bought the biofuel and put it in the logistics exchange and refueled in the air. following a presidential directive we have been working with the department of agriculture and energy to come up with a nationwide biofuel industry. we have contracts today under the defense production act that
5:04am
by 2016 with four biofuel companies assuming all of them make it through this process, they are contracted to provide us with about 163 million gallons a kwraoeryear at a good bit less than $4 a gallon, which is very competitive with oil and gas and domestically produced. all four have different feed stocks. i don't really care where it comes from. but it has budget advantages not the least of which gives our partners a new income stream for a short basis. it is any kind of technology from solar to wind geothermal hydrothermal, fuel cells that can use different kinds of fuel
5:05am
to power them. so our goal -- and i'm confident we are going to reach it -- is by 2020 at least half of all naval energy will come from non-fossil fuel sources. we have six years to do that. i think we are on track to get there. >> secretary again we are ahead of the budget but secretary hagel did release earlier this week out lineslines, some controversy about cost reductions -- not cost reductions but locker the cost profile for people costs. that is, of course something that hits everyone. you have 900,000 people in your command. what do you say to them about striking this balance between honoring our commitment to them
5:06am
and honoring our commitment to the people to have the equipment we need in 30 years, this tradeoff of people resources and equipment? how do you speak to your command about that? >> i have lost track of the number of all hands calls i have done around the world. i know i'm north of 500 but somewhere up there. in fact i think i just about met every sailor and marine we have. i have sure tried to. the questions that i get are about un certaintycertainty. what is going to happen in this year after year after year of uncertainty. the way i respond is number one we ought to have some certainty here, but, number two, we've got to get control of our personnel costs or, to your point we are
5:07am
going to begin to take the tools out of the hands of our soldiers sailors, airmen, marines, coast guard that they need. the other way to save money on personnel is to get rid of personnel personnel. so, it comes down to -- and i do think it has to be absolutely fair. you have to be fair it the people who defend us and protect us. i think that particularly over the last 10 years with the rise of military going up 40% more than comparable stipulate that aware being fair. and what we are talking about is not cutting what is slowing the growth growth. and it is slowing the growth in things like healthcare for retirees, for working age retirees who work for companies
5:08am
that can give them, that do offer healthcare. i think it is fair to look at that instead of saying we are going to keep on this march we are going to keep watching those costs rise and we are going to begin to make decisions about not modernizing for the paoepleople -- the best way i have heard it said we should never send our folks into a fair fight. we should always say if we're going to fight we should have the advantage, whether technological ly technologically or -- it doesn't matter we should have the advantage. the final thing is the sailors and marines that i know -- and as i said, i have met most of them -- i don't think there are very many of them that join for
5:09am
the money. that is an important part and it is important we keep the faith. but to make this all about money and to make it all about them and money i think degrades the patriotism and sense of sacrifice and service they bring to us. >> secretary you were a remarkably successful governor. you know politics. you know what it is like to sell tough deals. do you think you can sell this deal this year on this budget? >> well, number one, if we can sell it on the merits, yes. i think that it is something we have to look at. and we have to make the case for it. because it is not something that is vague and ephemeral and down the road somehow. it is today.
5:10am
those choices are going to have to start being made today because for every dollar you do not get in compensation savings and slowing the growth it is dollar you are going to have to find somewhere else. there is just not the unlimited money that defense got used to a decade ago. so so, we are at the tradeoff now. and i do understand the politics of things. i understand trying to sell hard choices. but at some point you've got to step up to those hard choices or the choices you will begin making are more unpalatable. >> this isn't a slow peachitch question there is t-ball. i will let you whack this one out of the park.
5:11am
it concerns the modernization of our nuclear forces. you are looking at some pretty steep bills coming for trident replacement and overwhelming lyly our nuclear deterrent now is with the navy. we've got some tradeoffs. are you able to afford this modernization program? >> two parts of the modernization program. the first part is the ohio class replacement, the submarines that carry those nuclear weapons are going to begin to reach the end of their service life and we literally can't send them. so we are doing the research and development and design today for that ohio class replacement. we have to start buying in quantity about 2019 to get the
5:12am
subs that we are going to need. we have to have the common missile department designed and ready to go even earlier because the british are using the same missile compartment and they have to have it before we do. their submarines are ahead of ours in terms of retirement and rebuilding. i think this is a debate that between now and 2019 which is now inside the five-year defense plan or it will be in 2015 we need to have. because if we build these -- and we will build these it is not if we are going to build them. but if the money to build tell comes out fof navy ship building it will take at least half every year of all our ship building dollars. it will devastate the rest of
5:13am
navy ship building. and i'm talking in the late 2020's and 2030's. it will devastate submarine building in terms of attack submarines surface ship, every kind of ship we build. and i think we need to have a debate. this is a national mission. this, as you said, a lot of it is beginning to be on the shoulders of navy. we have the most survivable part of the triad. it is a crucial capability that we have. we've got to make sure we have it. but it is a national mission. and to degrade the rest of navy missions to meet that, i think that is a debate not only in congress but also with the american people how should that be paid for. >> i think that is exactly right. this is a national debate we
5:14am
have to have. we know we have to have a reliable didn't. it is now overwhelmingly going to be on the back of the navy. your resources can accept that without compromising our capacity. >> and aware driving the -- we are driving the price of the ohio class down. we have taken almost $2 billion per boat out already just using commonality with the virginia class attack submarine and doing some inknownovative things with it but in is a limit. >> sure. friends, i'm going to turn to you for questions. i forgot to say thank you to our very good friends at rolls royce who make it possible for us to bring this to you. steve plummer is here and i want to say thanks. if there are questions that people want to offer and we will start with you. but i reserve the right to
5:15am
change questions if they are too narrow. so you go ahead. >> i'm from a tv insurance in china. u.s. navy to deploy laser weapons first time this year. do you think developing them will be against the [inaudible] eventually? >> we are deploying our first laser weapon very soon. and we are well into development of laser weapons. at some point it becomes almost impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet and you have to change technology. this is one of those very promising technologies that we think we will see a lot more of. >> sidney. >> thank you. >> can we get you a microphone. we want everyone to hear you. >> i'm plenty loud enough for
5:16am
most people, sir. thank you. mr. secretary, i among others have heard you spend a lot of time and energy the past year plus saying littoral combat ship is a real warship and is survivor survivor -- survivable for what it needs to do. now we have the secretary signing off saying well maybe it is not. maybe it was survivable enough for a different world but with asia and higher tech sort of threats and my apology it the young lady to china, the l.c.s. isn't adequate for that part of the world. what is your take on this change of course and how does the navy adjust to it? >> i think it is very important to look at exactly what the secretary of defense said, which is keep building l.c.
5:17am
is that we are building today -- l.c.s. that we are building through the five-year plan. take the negotiations past that and take a look at some of the things you mentioned, survivability, lethality, concept of operations of the ship ship. and other things. cost of a replacement, how soon a replacement could be done. we are just beginning to operationally test the littoral combat ship. we started now in 2014 doing that. the secretary has given us a direction, which frankly we welcome welcome.
5:18am
we have done with every type of naval ship before, which is see if there are any gaps and see if it is going to be adequate. and one of the things he specifically called out was a modified l.c. sfplts., or the next flight of l.c.s. but if that doesn't work we ought to look at different options options. a different design. how long would that take? how much would it cost? what would it do to that presence argument? other types of things. there may be designs already out there, although i know some -- not the secretary but some -- have recommended look at foreign designs. number one, i don't think any foreign design is up to our standards. number two i'm pretty sure that the navy and congress doesn't
5:19am
want to put americans out of work doing that. so i pham knowledgeable that the position has remained stable but if you look at our dvg-51, when we were about this point we did some pretty extensive testing and we started building the next flight. we are now about to start building a fourth flight of the dvg- dvg- dvg-51's. the fourth flight is a very different ship from flight 1. the same thing with the virginia attack submarines. the subs that we are building today are about the third flight
5:20am
from the ones away started building -- we started building. so we have this year with the decision coming in the 2016 budget on l.c.s. and i frankly think that this is -- i take this as pretty good news. we have to have a small surface combatant. what the secretary said is we have to have a small surface combatant, it has to have the capability and we have to have it for presence. if l.c.s. can meet that bill, do it and modify it in a way it needs to. if it can't, particular out something else. >> we are former ship drivers and we share a common university which is pretty common i have to say. but i wish as a member of the harvard military unit i wish to
5:21am
thank you for what you did to bring the ivy league back into what might be called the rest of the country with rotc a few years ago. but now i will ask a politically -- >> that is good enough. >> no, no. i'm a former amphib officer. i keep seeing all of these wonderful words about 11 aircraft carriers and i think gee, i don't do the math very well. don't we have 23? just a question. >> the short answer is yes with big deck amphibs. we just commissioned the next big one the america that will join the fleet there summer. and the capability that those bring us is simply astounding particularly with the v-2 22 osprey and the future the 35,
5:22am
the stovall version. if i could loop back to the first comment, i was at harvard right after rotc was asked to leave leave, and following only west point and annapolis harvard has the most medal honor recipients in america any university in america america. and now we have rotc back at harvard, yale and columbia, and princeton. and i think it is very important that the military that defends america reflects america and reflects all of america. i was very happy that we were able to do that, not just at those four places but making
5:23am
sure that the military and the 1% or fewer than 1% americans that serve in uniform doesn't get detached or distanced from the 99% they protect. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you so much. i have a question of military exercise exercise. we know the united states and south korea just began joint military exercises and we saw north korea launched a four-shot range missile. how do you evaluate the situation there and what message do you think north korea is sending by this action? and another kind of measure is taken by russia on the ukraine crisis. so this morning we saw a press conference.
5:24am
what kind of role will the united states navy have in this kind of crisis? >> let me take the last question off the table. i don't think it is fair it ask the secretary that question. the president of the united states will talk about that. ok. >> the exercises that we do with allies, friends around the world but particularly an ally like south korea, they are scheduled, they are announced, and we are very transparent about it. and it is part of the thing i talked about with presence and part of the thing i talked about the engagement. we are going to be there. we are going to be there all the time. so this is not a professorvocaprovocation
5:25am
because we do it all the time. and it is these sorts of exercises and making sure we are inoperable and making sure we know how we and our allies work together together, there is no substitute for things like that. but again, we are completely transparent about this. we announce them. we announce them a lot of times a long time in advance. so the notion that somehow we are escalating, somehow we are provoking provoking, there's nothing to that. >> yes, sir. third row back. >> i have a question about the ships that were in japan in 2011 and appropriations bill of fiscal 2014 give money for
5:26am
research money. can you explain how that agreement with congress came about? >> as you pointed out, ronald reagan and her strike group was sailing across the pacific when the tsunami hit japan. the ronald reagan was turned very quickly and went and began it deliver humanitarian assistance, disaster relief. we were very, very vigilant about how much radiation exposure there was to ships crew to our helicopter pilots, and to all of our people that were going in there. we sent ships up from amphibious ships from southern japan to this as well. and i was there about three
5:27am
weeks later in one of the briefings is how we were measuring any exposure and how diligent and vigilant we were being about that. this is one of those things that to make absolutely certain that -- and we have no indications that there were excessive radiation of any kind during that operation. this is just to add another layer of caution to make sure that there's nothing there. >> up in the back. >> i want to get back to the truncated l.c.s. program. i understand that the contracts you currently have for ship building will get to the 300 number by 2019. but by truncating the program it come up with a new ship do you
5:28am
expect to be able to sustain that 300-ship number in the next decade once you have reached it? >> as to the last question, yes. second is you misconstituented -- misstated what happened. you said trunk kitting that ship and -- truncating that ship and coming up with another option. that is one option. one option the secretary clearly laid out is taking the l.c.s. and modifying it. but, yes in any eventuality we are going to stay in the 300-ship range. >> [inaudible]? >> well, part of the look over the next year is, if we went to a different design, if we went to a different type ship, how
5:29am
long would that take and what would it cost? because we have driven the cost of l.c.s. down dramatically. the alternatived l.c.s. -- the 10th l.c.s. of each variant that will be coming off the line under there block buy, one from mobile and one from wisconsin, the hull will cost about $350 million. that is down dramatically from the first two, which cost upwards of $750 million the first two research ships, the test ships freedom and independence that were built several years ago. so we have driven that cost down. by competition we made the two yards compete against each other. so costs would also be a factor because in order to get that
5:30am
300-ship tphaefrp and get all -- navy we have to keep the cost very much in control. >> careful he last questioned truman. >> i'm well aware. >> we constantly hear rumors the navy is soft on the charlie version of the f-35 and would you speak to that. and the other question i have is on the darwin deployment. do you intend to pump ships or aircraft down there so that marine detachment that is down there can move around on its own? >> i will take those in reverse order if you don't mind. we are going to have a fifth
5:31am
amphibious group in the pacific by 2018 partly it meet that demand but as part of the ship to the pacific. the marines as marines do, are also looking at a lot of different operating concepts for lift, for manufacturing marines around the pacific. we are building 10 high-speed vessels that can move a lot of people at 40 knots and a lot of equipment around a place like the pacific. we are building two m.l.p.'s, mobile landing platforms in fact both are already -- one is in fleet and one is about to join the fleet. then we're building two more for staging base ss which are m.l.p.'s, mobile landing
5:32am
platforms, with flight deck on it. these are going to be -- and there sis -- we are looking at another one. so a total of five of these. these give you a lot of different options of how you move marines, how you stage, how you re supplysupply. so, yes, we are going to have more amphibious ships, more a.m. amphibious lift for not just marines in darwin but in the pacific. but we are also looking at a lot of other different concepts of operations to move marines in different ways. last thing i will say about that my favorite answer that was ever given at a hearing was somebody asked heuplim member of congress asked him how many amphibious ships he wanted. he said want? i don't know, 50, 100.
5:33am
he said but let me tell you. if there is some place marines need to go he said you remember that italian cruise ship this ran aground and turned over we are r we will dewater her, get her right and put marines on them and take them there. we will get the marines there. very short answer to you, the sea version was always going to be the last version. the navy was always last in the queue and we have always made our plans for that. our timetable for our first operational squadron is still about the same. there may be you change procurement numbers or things like that. but we haven't changed our initial operating capability for the first squadron.
5:34am
>> there is one carrier in the gulf region angle right now. -- apparently right now. do you envision only keeping one in the persian gulf for the foreseeable future and it is not every day you get a memo from the secretary saying i have considerable reservations about whether there program is good for the navy the next phenomena decades. it seemed to come out of the blue given this the program will political support on the hill and most of the consensus up to this point was about the mission modules. >> the question about the carrier carrier, the steady state has been one carrier for a long time. there was about a year and a half or two-year period that we
5:35am
went to two. that was the exception, not the steady state. we are going to an optimized fleet response plan to make sure that we deploy our carriers on a sort of pretty certain schedule so we gave sailors and families a notion so we can make sure we are going to do the maintenance and training and we are laying that in starting very soon in terms of when we deploy, how we deploy. and it is to meet these global force management issues that, about where we put carriers and how long they remain there. i was fine with the l.c.s. memo. we are just beginning testing,
5:36am
and the thing that made me pretty comfortable with it fswas this is basically the notion for every single ship type we have ever had coming from different which is. you look become, ddg-51 g.a.o. issued a scathing report on it saying you need to slow this down, you need to quit for a while until you kcan -- because it just dent -- doesn't do anything. you grow these things and mature these things.
5:37am
if the l.c.s. cannot do -- and it is important to note -- cannot do what it is required to tkodo do, then we should look at something else. but you should look at it in the context -- and he put it in the memo -- cost, schedule and so how long would it take to get to the fleet? it generally takes about a decade to get a design done and in the fleet. it also talked about driving acquisition costs down, which we have done and we are doing in virtually every ship flight. so overall i'm very comfortable with this decision. i think that to the extent, you tphoeknow know i will pick on your
5:38am
profession here for a second. in looking back, it is not just l.c. is that this has -- l.c. is that this has happened to but it is the controversial l.c.s. with its cost skrofr -- overruns. what cost overruns? we have driven the cost down dramatically. if we can't put them to rest, then we should be looking at something else. and the mission modules are pretty much exactly where we thought they would be at this point in development. the acting deputy secretary christine fox talked about the importance of spiral development, this week i think, talked about how spiral
5:39am
development is one of the best ways you can do these things. the package we have for l.c.s. is already better than our nine countermeasure war ships. other capabilities are also better than what we have out there in the fleet today. so we are exactly where we need to be and as i said, spiral development is one of the ways i talked about don't push technology before it is ready, but when it is ready have a way and whether l.c.s. or any other ship it audit to be modular so you don't have to build a whole new ship to do it. you should be able to drop things in and take them out. >> i have some very anxious staff officers back here saying the time is done. we should all be very grateful that someone of your talent, mr. secretary, has been willing
5:40am
to serve in so many ways for this country. you are doing a splendid job for the navy and the country. would you all with your applause please say thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next "washington journal" the upcoming primaries in texas and illinois and special election in florida. we will talk with david wasserman. then a look at proposed changes to nutrition labels. we will be joined by the american university anastasia
5:41am
snelling. then we will discuss pentagon efforts to discuss technology programs. "washington journal" is live every morning 7:00 a.m. eastern with your calls, tweets and facebook comments on c-span. >> in terms of fund-raising is this a technique you hope will be a truthful technique in fund-raising fund-raising? >> i don't think that is any of your business. >> i think the glamour of reagan had less to do less with his hollywood roots. it was not that it was the glamour of hollywood but it did have something to do with the skills and grace that he acquired as an actor. the fact that he always hit his mark. so he looked like he may have
5:42am
been out there fielding those questions look effortless which is another aspect of glamour. so, people who were likely to support him politically could see in him sort of the ideal candidate, the ideal representation of their views because he tkpbtdidn't make them embarrassed. they were not waiting for him to fail. as he got older that became more of an issue. but especially in the early days he had this air about how to be a successful politician of the tkaeuday day, successful italian courier. >> using glamour sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a".." >> the new c-span.org website
5:43am
makes it easier to keep tabs on washington and share your finds via facebook, twitter and other social networks. easy search functions led r let you access daily coverage. you can create video clips and share them with facebook, tweurpts and other social networks or send links. find the share tools on the video flare or look for the green icon links. watch washington on the new c-span.org and if you see something of interest, clip it and share it with trends.friends feel >> friday the u.n. security council held an emergency session to discuss the unrest in ukraine. following the closed door meeting ambassadors to ukraine, united states, russia and other countries talked to reporters for about an hour and 10 minutes.
5:44am
>> i briefed the security council on the developments and informed them about the creation of the new government by the overwhelming majority in the parliament this majority constitutional majority, which demonstrated the support not only of the new leaders in the power but also the opposition. yesterday the government was created again by overwhelm inging majority which gives legitimacy and the parliament of government was announced yesterday. it is bringing the vision of how to cope with the current crisis and how to cope with the reach of this crisis and how to stabilize the situation. the basic principles of this
5:45am
program is further tprpl makes of the civil society based on democratic principles and degree of the rights to all the nation of minority including language. a lot of stipulation about that. then unfortunately i informed about the recent developments in crimea crimea. today the parliament issued the resolution explaining that in crimea they are observing the external presence encouraging the clashes. the group identified people yesterday yesterday, dressed the ukrainian parliament and cabinet of
5:46am
ministers ministers. the parliament took the decision to have the referendum in may. the same situation happened recently in the two airports of crimea crimea. the group blocked the airports. i briefed the security council. i don't have my copies but my people do have. the current situation at the moment of unspecified and armed forces of russian federation in the territory of ukraine. we informed about the illegal crossing the borders by russian military transport aircrafts. around 10 of them, six plus four
5:47am
arrived. and 11 military cargo -- or 11 military helicopters also crossed the borders as well as the swaeugsituation -- the other situation situation. not transports. 24. we informed about the -- i just forgot the number. we informed the russian navy officer moved his contingent and demanded to explain what is
5:48am
going opbn. he is a russian navy captain who tried to explain his actions by recent decisions by crimean authorities. i informed the security council about our extreme concern and expressed a strong indignation regarding a recent post on the facebook page of the russian fortune ministry. i quoted this posting. instructions have been sent to the russian consulate john to urgently undertake all necessary measures to start the issue of russian passports. it was involved in the atrocities on the streets in kaef and this unit was submitted
5:49am
by the minister of interior. today our ministry of fortune affairs expressed its strong protest of the russian military presence in crimea and demonstrateddemanded it withdraw immediately all these units and people. i also informed the security council about the decision of t the parliament and the minister performance to address the russian federation, to hold the consultations under article 7 of the treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership 2010 ukraine and the russian federation of 1997. today the ministry got this
5:50am
proposal and rejected by the russian side. the parliament took the decision to address all the parties of the budapest memorandum signed between ukraine and five countries in 1994. due to other decisions to get rid of the nuclear armament. we addressed them to observe their obligations including russia, who signed this memorandum. we asked the security council to consider the situation in ukraine as seriously as it is and to under taketake the appropriate measures to assist us to stop
5:51am
the dangerous developments which are challenging the international peace and challenging doctor-term integrity. >> how would you characterize the russian military movements? with you characterize them as aggression? >> yes. because some of them identified themselves as russians. we know specifically some of the units units, for example, this 22nd special brigade of main intelligence department of armed forces of russian federation we know involved the special marine forces company. i gave you the name of this captain who led his group because of the decision of the crimean parliament and we
5:52am
identified the presence of the russian aircraft and helicopters. the people who invaded in the parliament and crimean parliament and council and who is congress the airports there to be identified. >> can you tell us the name of the naval officer and can you tell us where the aircraft are headed? are they going in crimea or other places and whether your government still has control of the two airports in crimea. >> where is the name? here. -on-en coast guard unit was blocked by a group of armed people under the command of russian navy captain of the first rank. so, this is his title.
5:53am
colonel for the infantry. alexander bolmachov who tried to explain his reaction actions. still we do not have full control in the airports. more than that once he got from kiev so -- uh -- the man air control has been captured by the armed forces russian federation and -- well and the -- all the signals are being suppressed by
5:54am
the effort to control the air movement. so here we are. >> what is your response to the press conference in russia and where is the government request to the international monetary fund? where does it stand and how long a time frame are you looking at? >> luckily i had a chance to listen and what my colleagues have observed is this is comedy. if you look back as i was told by my colleagues if you look at what he saeudid literally that because fof the strategic relations with ukraine look, the president of ukraine stated it like that. so, no command because a man who
5:55am
could step aside even on the price of his own position. and not to permit people to kill each other. escaped from the country somewhere and the implement m.f. as you were informed the delegation of i.m.f. is coming early next week. the statement from i.m.f. they are ready it negotiate the positions but what is very important for us they do understand the restrictions because money to come should work for the reforms and not appear as two or three dinners
5:56am
given by the russian side. but they are to work for the reforms and the people and government should know exactly where this money will go. >> what do you exactly expect from this section of the security council? and besides calling it aggression will you please again just in a word or two summarize how you describe those who aggressed your country? >> we observed in crimea and coming from the russian federation. today today the delegations, the visitors from russia, the russian parliament are coming there
5:57am
there. they are installing people as their protection. but it happened before. we made a lot of statements 10 years ago, 15 years ago of a permanent invasion and encouraging. there are groups, pro russians that exist. they are making a serious mistake challenging our territorial independence and integrity. i would like you not to be partial. look in the internetover and make analysis yourself who was appointed by the crimean parliament as a prime minister recently. you will understand everything. the same scenario that happened
5:58am
in other areas. the people always are given the question the people who made crime and so on. look and compare. this is something that needs the global understanding of the process because the mechanisms are the same. what i expect from security council and from all of you, we need the impartial, true coverage of the situation in crimea. because it is one -- sided. one-sided coverage from the russian side. what we need to have -- we want you to help us to bring the truth around the world what is going on. what we expect from security council and all my colleagues.
5:59am
first of all first of all, moral support. you have to understand what is going on. we want from them political support. we want from them to do everything possible in terms of preventive diplomacy. still we have a chance to stop the negative developments and stop all of the separatism through the strong voices from around the world. because we have observed the same scenario in many places. somebody comes and >> again, thank you. if the security council does not give you the support also because russia is one of the permanent members with a bit of power, can you tell us what your government expects from
6:00am
the european union and the united states to calm the situation, to make the situation not escalate more? >> thank you. as you and me, i am following the final stance of the security council. i know that we have the support because several days ago, when the presidency briefed the security council, the discussion brought to the exchange of the positions of the security council member states on the situation in the ukraine. all 14 members, 15 is russia they stated that for the territorial integrity, they stated for the unity, they stated practically for the support.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)